>IMNSHO, IF the goal does NOT include something earth shattering too, then
>you are not dreaming big enough, hence the endeavor is going to fail. People
>NEED to see an UPSIDE to come aboard. Without a hope for a "killer app,"
>then go home now. FWIW, however, I do feel that a new-age HyperCard that
>goes out to multiple platforms with a suite of support and an open
>institution HOME-Base is plenty for the "killer app" attractiveness.
Mark,
that's why I didn't want to add more killer stuff. Of course we will later
get to adding features, but first we have to copy HyperCard pretty much,
and thus we also have our work cut out for us. In the long term, I also
want to add features. But we shouldn't get into feature-crazedness until we
have the first step, which would be HyperCard. And, as you said, for the
moment, HyperCard on three of the most popular OSs and with color support
and as Open Source is killer enough. We don't want to exstinguish our users
right away.
>People who get trademarks want low-distrubances, hence they
>won't want what name we've got. Few get trademarks to stifle others.
>In an OPEN endeavor such as this, a trademark is a burden, IMHO. The
>one-or-two steps of protections a trademark offers means five-or-more in
>reverse, at many turns. For a corporate title, a trademark makes sense and
>is prudent. For a community title -- doubtful as I view it.
Could you elaborate? What are these 5 steps back? Anthony said we'd use a
trademark, not a registered one. I guess this would just mean making clear
to everyone the name is owned by us, which would be OK. If it works this
way (can you shed any light on this issue?) we should do it.
>As for the "institution" as an OpenCard Distribution, head scratching again.
>Bazaar or Cathedral? Distributed distribution is necessary for a rich delta
>of growth. Let's not fall into the trap of trying to be like Apple, or IBM
>in the good old days. I'm not happy to give props to a company.
I don't mean to restrict distribution. I just want to establish one
reliable source. There may be (and hopefully will be) more sources, but
there needs to be an official distribution to guide users somewhere, and to
ensure there's at least one distribution that does thorough beta-testing
and distributes a possibly bug-free version. This is not for us
programmers, it's solely for the users' benefit.
>Then there is the "rely on" part. Scott at MetaCard is so on the ball that
>he is someone to rely on, IMHO. I trust him, but one person does not make
>for an institution, right? Want prompt support and cross-platform
>capabilities, go to MetaCard. But, I want more.
Sure. I like MetaCard, I like Serf, but these two aren't OpenCard. That's
why I'm still here. Still, for the reasons above, for the users, we need an
"official" distribution.
>The real rely on part comes from within. Being open, being free is all about
>self-reliance if need be. The broken elements of the software tool can be
>fixed by me with the limits being one's own skill or one's ability to pay
>for such skill and nothing more, as it is FREE and OPEN afterall. One does
>not need to beg Apple or an IncWell-like owner for such and such bug fix or
>feature request. Hence, I'll choose to rely on myself, the open-ness and
>lean on the community as best as I'm able.
This will still be possible. The official group will distribute the
sources, too. But imagine people like Alain, who want to write Web CGIs w/o
learning C/C++. Think of "the rest of us" as the discussion so often said;
they don't know how to program, and they need some central body they can
depend on. Us. The official group. It is an add-on to Open Source, not a
replacement.
>So, the part about users being able to rely on some institution is solved in
>this endeavor by the user him/herself. Self-reliance is the ticket. In other
>words, we don't need to establish much at all in order to get the goal of
>being "reliable." A high bandwidth site, no big deal. The code, of course
>that is a big deal. But, the license is even bigger in terms of hitting the
>goal of getting users to rely on it without fears.
This won't work for people like me when I got to HyperCard: Back then I
was 12, had no idea of Mac programming. I got new releases from Apple.
There needs to be an equivalent seeding place _including_ rudimentary
support. I'm just trying to establish that. Some sort of HC Mailing list
will be needed, some official web site, and people who operate it -- Us.
I'm not trying to get more done.
>Doing anything is acting on philosophy. Frankly, I'm sorry to read of your
>attitude. This project needs, IMHO, to stand on the shoulders of RS,
>Mozilla, Free-BSD, etc., etc. --- with one foot, and on the shoulders of the
>HyperCard entourage with the other.
As you say: It has to stand on *two* shoulders. I never meant to say I
could live without philosophy. I'm one of those people who tends to think
too much, and this is why I try to get something done this time. We need to
get some basic stuff finished so people see there's something to build
upon. When we have a thing that looks like it was Bill Atkinson's first
stab at HC, we can add philosophy to get people on the bandwagon. But
before that we need to do something ourselves.
>Disagree! Yes it is free. It is way free then. And, it is NOT to say that
>one can't do otherwise before said date (Jan. 2002), but with distain.
>Just to be more clear, my idea about a Jan. 2002 summit where we re-visit
>anything and everything from new licenses, forking and trademarks with grace
>is just an idea throw to the crowd. It is an action plan that takes a
>back-seat to the driving philosophy of importance. That 2002 summit idea is
>something I can live without, for sure, if objections and other better
>solutions surface. Okay. However....
>Forking early means death. I've been puzzled by the notion here where
>"Forking" seems to be "grand" in some of these postings. Forking sucks.
>Forking kills. Together we all are stronger. Forking early is stupid. If we
>can delay forks for the first couple of years, we'll make much greater
>strides.
I never said we should fork early. But I don't think people will do it.
Everyone working on OpenCard knows that we get power out of collaboration.
So, early forking forbids itself. If we make such plans like a 2002 summit,
it might probably cause people to leave us thinking they can't fork, and it
may cause others to fork at the first opportunity in 2002. It gives the
whole situation some kind of fatality. Let's just try to get this working
now. There's no need for a summit of this kind, it will happen out of the
natural flow of events as soon as the first version is done and people
begin saying "What now?".
There's no need to regulate everything. Some things are better left to the
natural flow, and I think we have now arrived at a place where we can go on
working as soon as this trademark thingy is sorted out.
>Your desire for a safe tool is worthy and attractive. As I look at this
>pursuit, the code elements and the tool itself is the nuts-and-bolts. Of
>course we need great, iron-clad, visionary code and such. However, perhaps
>the injection of "philosophy" into the process is like a dash of perfume. A
>great body is one thing, but THEN the philosophy/perfume gets noticed, and
>then, wow, one weakens at the knees. This makes heart-beats skip.
I don't quite see through the metaphors you're presenting. Could you clarify?
>I'd like to see a chart of sorts listing all the PROs and CONs of operation
>under a TradeMark.
Me, too.
Thanks for lending an ear.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
